Talk:Berber people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Berber people was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Tifinagh This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however, the article does not have that version of its name in the lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Inaccurate numbers for The Netherlands, Belgium, France

This article lists the number of Berbers in The Netherlands as 120.000. However, there are 300.000+ Moroccans in The Netherlands, 80% of whom are Berber, and 80% of 300.000 is a lot more than 120.000. Same thing goes for Belgium. And France seems especially off to me... there is a huge number of Algerians in France, alongside Moroccans and Tunisians, the majority of those probably being Berber also, so the 100.000 figure is ridiculously low. It would probably be closer to a million factually. ssoass 9:48, 1 July 2007


False, the majority are not Berber. The numbers are accurate. Mariam83 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Ssoass is right: "From the late sixties onwards, Rif Berbers migrated in considerable numbers to the Netherlands and Belgium. In the Netherlands the estimated number of speakers of Rif-Berber is 200.000 out of a total of 300.000 Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin." [1]
This is of course the opinion of Leiden who believe that Moroccan imigration represent the Moroccan society. If fact, i would believe that 80% of the Moroccans in the Netherlands are Riffians and the 20 % is to deal between the other berbers (shluh en souss-speaking Berbers) besides the Darija-arbic speaking Moroccans. Read3r 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed the number of the Netherlands to 20,000 which is just ridiculous as most Dutch people will tell you.

I revised the number to 250,000 but I really believe it is more since there are 320,000 Moroccans in The Netherlands and the large majority of those are Berbers and identify as such. But for a lack of accurate research 250,000 will do, and again I would say almost all Dutch people in the know would agree with me as would the Moroccans. ssoass 5:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient history

The word "Berber" is not used by sources from Classical Antiquity. The article should point out which ancient ethnonym (Libyans, Numidians..?) is believed to correspond to the modern Berbers. --91.148.159.4 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And it does, right near the top. -- Lonewolf BC 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't, unfortunately, but this is not an encyclopedia. It is basically a disaster, it chronincles ignorance and nonsense. IF you really want to learn anything, forget about "wikipedia" and stick to classic sources. Mariam83 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it does! It says that the Greeks called them Libyans and the Romans called them Numidians and Mauri. The Romans also called them other names for particular subsets of them, not having a unitary name for the lot, though this detail is not mentioned. -- Lonewolf BC 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, I guess I didn't notice it. But Libyans and Numidians are often distinguished in classical sources. I suppose the Numidians could be defined as a "subset" (whereas "Libyan" was pretty general, given that Libya could almost mean "Africa" at the time). --91.148.159.4 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And Afriqiya, as opposed to Africa, at "the time" would not mean Africa of our time. Irrer 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Libya was the country of the Etheopians and the Libyans. Thus, Libyans didn't mean the inhabitants of Libya. But it meant at that time a type of Inhabitant. Thus, the Etheopians were not Libyans, although they inhabited "Libya". Read more: Ancient Libya Read3r 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Libya was never the country of Ethiopians. This is a well-known fact that even a glossing of the evidence conveys. Your problem is the misreading and/or miscomprehension of sources and facts. Irrer 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"One thing more also I can add concerning this region, namely, that, so far as our knowledge reaches, four nations, and no more, inhabit it; and two of these nations are indigenous, while two are not. The two indigenous are the Libyans and Ethiopians, who dwell respectively in the north and the south of Libya."[2] Read3r 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Dear Read3r, thank you for providing this illuminating source. To use your source, here is what Herodotus has to say about the Ethiopians:

"The Garamantians have four-horse chariots, in which they chase the Troglodyte Ethiopians, who of all the nations whereof any account has reached our ears are by far the swiftest of foot. The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles. Their language is unlike that of any other people; it sounds like the screeching of bats." According to your source, you should edit the wikipedia on Ethiopia in accordance.

Yet another questionable judgment on Herodotu's part:

"For my part I am astonished that men should ever have divided Libya, Asia, and Europe as they have, for they are exceedingly unequal. Europe extends the entire length of the other two, and for breadth will not even (as I think) bear to be compared to them."

We know that Europe is by far the smallest, in fact much smaller. Your source is thus unusable, unsurprisingly. Irrer 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fully understand you wanted to say (i'm weak in English ;)). However, Herodotus is not the accurate source, but he was simply right that there were ethiopians and libyans. When you read in the works of Gabriel Camps, you will read that "black people" were found in the funeraries of Carthage.
One think that should help is not confusing the modern Libyan with Herodotus's Libya and the ancient Etheopians with the modern etheopians.Read3r 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
he wasn't even right about the size of Europe, in fact, absurdly and grossly wrong, and as he himself says, "he heard " of these things. furthermore, black people were never found in the funeraries of Carthage, as they never existed in Carthage and are not native to North Africa. The confusion must arise from the use of the term "africa" which today means something that it didn't mean in ancient times. I suppose that if the sub-saharan african region were today referred to as Ghandi, that we would be discussing the pakistani (notice the irony) bodies found in Nigeria. This assertion, of course, is substantiated by just about any authoritative source and/or document. The most important perhaps would be Ibn Khaldun's work, as he was born in area. Irrer 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Irrer, which is is that Herodotus, as an ancient Greek scholar, is an excellent source to consult if one wishes to know what terminology the ancient Greeks used, and that according to him they used "Libya" for the landmass we now call Africa (insofar as they knew it), but "Libyan" only for those of its inhabitants we now call Berbers. In this regard, it is true but irrelevant that Herodotus contains plenty of fanciful hearsay about foreign countries, so that not everything he wrote can be taken straight, and true but irrelevant that he was wrong about some things because of the limited knowledge available to him. -- Lonewolf BC 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, you mistakenly assume that the Ifriqiya of then is the landmass known as AFrica today. We know that Sub-saharan Africa was not explored at the time, not even by the Arabs. However, East Africa, countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia, might be the countries that the ancient world wrote about. To say "the landmass we now call Africa" is inaccurate.Irrer 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have overlooked or not understood "insofar as they knew it". To clarify: The ancient Greeks called as much of Africa as they knew about "Libya". They also knew that it went on southward beyond the lands they knew or had heard of. I made neither assumtion about, nor even any mention of "Ifriquya". -- Lonewolf BC 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, however, in ancient times, Black people, it is claimed, ruled even in the British Isles and Sweden. Here is an excerpt from literature that you might find interesting: "Any comprehensive account of the Black African presence in early Europe should include England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Scandinavia. The history and legends of Scotland confirm the existence of "purely Black people." We see one of them in the person of Kenneth the Niger. During the tenth century Kenneth the Niger ruled over three provinces in the Scottish Highlands. The historical and literary traditions of Wales reflect similar beliefs. According to Gwyn Jones (perhaps the world's leading authority on the subject), to the Welsh chroniclers, "The Danes coming in by way of England and the Norwegians by way of Ireland were pretty well all black: Black Gentiles, Black Norsemen, Black Host." Pretty interesting stuff. Irrer 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Some wing-nut's fringe thesis about peoples of northern Europe is quite irrelevant, and "interesting" only as a oddity. We are considereing what the Berbers were called by the ancient Greeks and Romans.-- Lonewolf BC 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riffians and "Imazighen"

This is mainly for Nochi:

The reason I reverted your adding of "Riffians" to that spot in the article's lead section is two-fold: Firstly, more than two examples of what that bit is about are not needed. Secondly, what that bit is about is the relative prevalence of the use of words other than "Imazighen" for self-identification by Berbers outside Morrocco, as against those within Morrocco. Whereas the Riffians are Berbers within Morrocco, (a) they make a poor example of how Berbers outside Morrocco are less apt to use "Imazighen", even if they do tend not to use it, and (b) in the lack of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose that they are among those Morroccan Berbers who tend to use "Imazighen", making them altogether useless as an example of non-Morroccan Berbers who don't use "Imazighen".

Edit-summaries are meant only for saying what edit you've made and why you've made it. Please don't use them argumentatively or use all-capitals in them, which is generally interpreted as "shouting". In fact, please don't SHOUT, even outside of edit-summaries, and try for a less vehement, more collegial tone. However, the above should have answered the rhetorical questions you asked in your edit-summary.

-- Lonewolf BC 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maghreb Arabic

Arabic is an "official language" of most of the self-identified Arab régimes not "the Berbers", an important distinction. Putting Arabic in the infobox instead of the more descriptive Maghreb Arabic is a questionable choice, given that literary Arabic plays little part in Berber self-identification, in addition to its highly contentious history vis-à-vis the native cultures (both Berber and Maghreb Arabic). This is also a matter of academic linguistics, not politics, and the claim here [3] rests on no factual ground. No one as a matter of course "speaks" Arabic per se, only one of its varieties, which differ from each other and from Arabic as much as Latin and the Romance languages. Hassaniya [4] for example is an official Arabic language of Mauritania – that does not go without saying. — Zerida 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This largely hinges on whether Arabic as spoken in the Maghreb is a dialect (or some dialects), or a separate language (or languages). If you can show that scholarly consensus is that it is a separate language (or separate languages), fine. Otherwise, please leave it as the straightforward "Arabic". -- Lonewolf BC 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, there are no clear, objective criteria that break up human speech neatly into "dialects" and "languages". It's mostly a socially defined concept, much like ethnicity itself (see Dialect#"Dialect" or "language"). Linguists don't care much whether Maghreb Arabic is a group of languages or dialects, they describe it as both because this is how it is seen differently by different speakers. Linguists for the most part, however, focus on the study of spoken not written languages. Standard Arabic is not a spoken language. It is neither spoken by the Berbers nor is it an official language of a representative Berber body -- in other words, it is not very discriptive. Definitive remarks about Arabic varieties being languages are made when mutual intelligibility is the factor. This is the criterion used by Ethnologue [5] ("....there are several distinct spoken Arabic languages, but Standard Arabic is generally used in business and media..."). I will include a scholarly reference in the article that treats Standard Arabic and the spoken varieties in this fashion. Please don't revert it. — Zerida 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You haven't provided evidence of a scholarly consensus that "Maghrebi Arabic" is a separate language, but only given one reference that might support such a view. This could easily be a minority opinion. Indeed, whereas this is the first I've ever heard of such a notion even though I'm fairly well-read on human geography, I have to think that it is not the general opinion. You needn't explain to me the fuzzy character of the distinction between dialect and language. The question is whether most scholars, for most purposes, regard Arabic as used by Berbers as a separate language from "Arabic" in the general sense of that word. You haven't shown that. You've given a reference to one paper by one scholar in which, seemingly, he takes such a view or at least explores the idea. (It is not possible to judge this surely given only the title and your say-so.) Meanwhile, the reference you give in your comment just above notes that Arabic is a single language from some viewpoints and for some purposes.
Please don't keep reintroducing the same edit without first resolving this through the talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Your assumption that in order for the infobox to reflect the fact that some Berbers are bilingual in Maghrebi Arabic rests on the notion that Maghrebi is a language is just not correct. At the risk of repeating myself, a scholarly consensus that "Maghrebi Arabic" is a separate language makes no sense on linguistic grounds. Real scholars cannot "come to consensus" on something that functions in different social situations differently, subjectively excluding one definition or possibility in favor of another (unless again intelligibility is a factor, and the Maghrebi varieties of course are not intelligible with other varieties). If there is something you don't understand about this, Lonewolf, it is not a valid reason to delete sourced information. In fact, there is no valid reason at all to delete information referenced by reliable sources.
2. It was you who added Arabic to the infobox fairly recently [6], therefore the burden of evidence is on you to substantiate it.
3. Another one in your long string of incorrect assumptions is that the reference I provided was a "paper". It is a book containing a collection of articles that deal specifically with the topic of Arabic as spoken by ethnic minorities in NA/ME, including Berbers.
4. If another editor provides a reliable academic reference to a claim in the article, it satisfies the inclusion criteria set in WP:V. Removing referenced information is disruptive. If you want to include Standard Arabic in addition to the spoken Arabic variety, you are obviously free to do that if you can provide a reliable reference that Standard Arabic is the language of writing for most Berbers. Whatever clarification you may need, it does not justify your constant inappropriate reversions of my legitimate edits. — Zerida 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this issue in abeyance (have already done so, really) while I deal with some other matters. Meanwhile please consider these few things: First, your proper course when an edit of yours is reverted is to resolve the issue through discussion, meanwhile accepting the revert (which is not to say agreeing with it), rather than continually re-making the edit as discussion goes on. (See WP:BRD.) You've ventured to accuse me of disruptiveness for reverting your same-again edits; whatever truth that accusation may hold, what does it say about yourself? You've also implied quite strongly that the problem, here, is some lack of understanding on my part about the nature of linguistic differences and distinctions, a supposition which is simply not so and, I think, lacks reasonable grounds. In any case, it were better that we focussed on the issue, not on supposed personal deficiencies, faults and offences.

Further, your posts suggest to me that you have not rightly understood the reason for my revert; I ask you to re-read my earlier posts, and also the following: This is not, finally, a factual issue of whether and by how much Arabic as spoken in the Maghreb differs from other forms of Arabic, but of whether it makes better editorial sense to use the generic or the specific in the infobox. Thus providing a reference -- and I'm not even sure just what that reference is supposed to prove -- does not play a trump. A fact that does weigh in this, though, is that, its variety notwithstanding, Arabic is generally regarded as but one language (by most educated people, for most purposes), as may be confirmed by consulting ordinary reference works.

Reviewing your remarks, it strikes me once again that they are mostly if not wholly non sequitur. You say this, and you say that, and I'm left thinking, "Tell me something I don't know," and "So what?" For instance, in regard to what languages Berbers use it does not matter that using Arabic is not a characteristic of Berber identity; it matters that it is a language which they commonly use. (Rather like English in relation to the Irish.) You also seem somewhat to be begging the question by construing "Arabic" to mean "standard Arabic", in particular, though perhaps I misunderstand you on that point.

Please consider all of that, and I'll get back to this when I am able. -- Lonewolf BC 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, to me it seems to make more sense to put the more informative Maghrebi Arabic in, if Arabic is to be listed at all. It's a significantly different variety (or set of varieties), and the link will be more informative to the reader, who can then also move on to look at the Arabic or Varieties of Arabic articles. Drmaik 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think if Arabic is to be listed at all is the key phrase here. I offered Maghrebi Arabic as a compromise since there are bilingual Berbers. Also, two Maghrebi varieties at least, Hassaniya and of course Maltese, are defined as "languages" in the popular sense of the word due to the political identification of their speakers. Considering, however, that the difference between those who identify as "Arab" in the Maghreb and the Berber-speaking populations is usually one of language, Arabic may not even be necessary at all. Come to think of it, I probably would have been justified in deleting Lonewolf's unsubstantiated addition altogether, though this would have been an adoption of your approach, Lonewolf, and I doubt it would have checked your overzealous desire to revert.
If "most educated people" don't know that Arabic is at the very least a diglossic language, then they should familiarize themselves with the topic until they feel comfortable enough making such matter-of-fact claims. I did not introduce non sequiturs into the argument by discussing the dialect-language dichotomy; it was your insistence that I needed to provide evidence of a "scholarly consensus" that Maghrebi Arabic was "a separate language" that precipitated the discussion. Finally, it also matters that there appears to be a revert-first zealousness in your editing approach in general. Perhaps you should consider that. — Zerida 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing, it's a matter of Arabic being generally regarded as one language, its variety notwithstanding. Your impressions of my "editing approach in general" are mistaken" and lacking in reasonable basis, but more importantly they are ad hominem, as are phrases such as "revert-first zealousness". Procedurally, though, it was more wrong of you to repeatedly re-make your edit instead of using the talkpage to resolve the matter first, than it was wrong of me to re-revert your edit as many times less one, also without the matter being resolved on the talkpage first. (The first edit and the first revert were both quite okay -- that's "Bold-Revert-Discuss".) As I said before, I can't focus on this issue for the time being. When I'm free to do so, we can discuss it -- collegially and without rancor, I hope. Meanwhile, please don't snipe at me over it. -- Lonewolf BC 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't focus on this issue for the time being I can see that, since you're still responding to my message with nothing to say about the content. Your editing behavior has been the subject of WP:ANI reports, so it is hardly "ad hominem" to point out what is obvious not only to me, but to others. In fact, your tone as we speak is both rude and discourteous, which is one of several things that you might want to work on. Second, it was not "more wrong" (whatever that means) of me to revert your disruptive deletion of the sourced information I provided -- that it was wrong of you to delete it, on the other hand, is a given since it is a matter of policy, just as it was wrong of you to make an unsubstantiated addition to the article, but expect other editors to provide evidence that your addition is not right for the article. That was your job. Just so we're clear though, when you're "free" to discuss it, I have no intention of doing it with your "attitude". I will, however, continue to defend the inclusion of factual, sourced information in the article. — Zerida 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is any reason to overlook the difference between standard arabic and M. arabic, it would be then avoiding the long explanation. both of them are called arabic by natives. But in reality, there is a difference between them, and the proof is that some high schools and universities do teach them seperately like Leiden university in The Netherlands. Anb above all, M. Arabic is not an accurate name, however it is not incorrect.Read3r 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berber Article?

There are something wrong with this article, it talks about Kabyles and other self termed people as "berber", Berber are only used by Rifi spoken "berbers", Berber are actually compression of other people to make an ethnic group I say lets just use Berber people to refer rifis. Balu2000 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Berber" is the English term for all of the people concerned. That is why the article should have the title it does, and none other. This has nought to do with what the sundry kinds of Berbers call themselves. -- Lonewolf BC 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not said that this article should be renamed or moved , but I think this article should be more about Rifi people since other Berber groups got own article except rifis.Balu2000 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing the topic of a title is equivalent to changing the title of a topic. Anyhow, the same terminological consideration applies: "Berber", in English, means all of these folks, and Riffis no more or less than the others. -- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If so then i want to request a deletion for [[7]] Balu2000 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are no Berbers calling themselves Berbers. The Riffians call them selves Riffians or Imazighen like many other Berber groups.Read3r 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] y chromosome section

much of the links are dead and say the pages do not exist to verify the infomation .if it's not replaced i will have to edited,dna studies must be verified--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the links (most of which still worked, anyhow) and added full citations for the articles referred to. A few out-of-date links are no good cause to delete a whole section of an article, especially when the links are to published scientific papers, which you can be pretty sure really exist even when you find that a link to one is defunct. If you come upon an alike situation again, please just update the links. Deleting the whole section was improper. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
i dont have to find new sources for the article, if i choose not to wolf i did not just go and delete the section.i left a message like a week before in the disscusion page,maybe you should have addressed the issue than not after the deed was done to complain and then state rights and wrongs wolf--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right that you would not have been obliged to find new sources to replace ones that had vanished. In this case, though, the reason you did not need to find new sources is that the ones provided were still very much in existence, and all that needed doing was to update the links to their online versions. These are scientific papers, published in established journals; they don't just evaporate when the links to their online versions are changed. Most of the links were still good, anyhow. Further, even if the sources in question had actually disappeared, that would have left only portions of the section unreferenced. Furthermore, a week is not enough time to allow for the addressing of lack of referencing, even were there truly is one, and the right way to do things would have been to put "{{fact}}" tags into the article at the specific points of concern. Merely leaving a note on the talk-page, noting the dead links and saying you "will have to [edit]" if they are "not replaced", but giving no indication that you planned such drastic action as deleting the whole section, was not adequate.
Thus your deleting of the whole section was wholly unjustifiable. Please do things properly from now on. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Anthropology' section

This section is composed of two quotes of racial stereotypes from the early 20th century... not really representing what we'd call anthropology these days. I was about to delete the section, but thought I'd mention why it doesn't fit in the article, if anyone else wants to comment. Drmaik 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i cant say much on the quote about nazi stuff and dont know what that has to do with anything an i have no problem with it being elimnated ,but i would like to comment on the second quote because i indroduced it anthropolgy along with dna is vital in determing population relations the study done was not the crude techniques of the early anthrpology done in the early 20th century. iT was done with more modern techniques the book it is from is a honest study by crediable profesors and acutaly one of the few books done on the berbers. Which was published a scant 10 years ago and the study was done by a renound scientist in the field.There is no dubious source sited in this quote and i strongly beliveve it should stay.Although the study which was quoted is from the 20th century was done in 1994 not 1904--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] any arabs reverted to berber culture?

hey, I was just wondering if there were any Arabs who have declared themselves to be Berbers...I've been looking into defining arabs, which turns out to be fairly hard(got into this discussion of whether Egyptians were arabs or not...) Just out of curiosity...Has it happened? DomDomsta333 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a good question i dont know the only thing i do know that there are sub saharan africans who had adopted and became berberised because of the increased contact with black africa begining in the 6th century via the arabs through trade routes from north africa into black africa--Mikmik2953 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See Moroccan Sahara, there seem to be instances in the Souss region of Berberized Arab groups, post-Colonial Arabization has muddled this. (collounsbury (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] A propos des origines des nord africains

Hanzukik (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)1dabord est ce que ces chercheurs ont preleve le dna de tous les 11 millions de tunisiens pour pouvoir donner une telle conclusion? 2comment peut on savoir qu un type est du moyent orient par son dna? 3quelle differnce y a til dans le dna entre un arabe un amazigh un hebreux ou un europeen du sud etant donne que ces populations appartiennent tous a la sous race mediterranide(petite stature cheveux du noir jusuq au blond yeux du noir jusqu au plus clair cranes brachycepahles peau de differnts teins du blanc pilosite pas tres abondante largeur moyenne des epaules)? 4comment savoir si un type est arabe par son dna s'il a par exemple un seul ancetre amazigh qui au cours de dizaines de generations s'est brasse avec des dizaines d'individus arabes? ou bien si dans ces ancetres existent des arabes des amazigh des pheniciens des proto-mediterraneens (les populations paleolithique de l'afrique du nord avant la migration des neolithiques amazigh puis les neolithiques arabes)? c'est a dire disons que un type a 20 milles ancetres(depuis l'apparition du premeir homo sapiens habilis qui avait la capacite de parler cad il y a quelques 80-100 milles ans de nos jours) dans ces ancetres l'ecrasante majorite on ne sait pas quelle langue ils parlaient l'infime reste est partage par exemple entre 100 arabes 23 arabophones 47 amaizgh 6 amazigh arabises 3 grecs turquises n X Yises quel est le critere pour etablir son origine linguistique ethnique nationale ou identitaire(ce sont des contextes differents)? aussi comment savoir "la langue ou l ethnie"de ces ancetres au dela de cette periode(cad depuis l apparition du premier homme homo sapiens sapiens erectus habilis il y a quelques 500 milles annees de la? 5aussi quelle est la difference genetique entre les differentes populations semito-hamitiques (amazigh arabes egyptiens beja etc etc)pour pouvoir determiner qui est qui? 6aussi quelle differnce genetique entre les differentes populations semitiques(arabes hebreux canaanites assyriens pheniciens)pour pouvoir dire qui est qui? 7comment considerer les populations paleolithiques presentes en nord de l afrqiue avant l arrivee des migrations neolithiques des amazigh puis des arabes vu que ces populations se sont amazighises en liassant quelques mots dans les different dialectes amazigh d'apres l'article wikipedia sur les origines genetiques des amazigh

Y chromosomes are passed exclusively through the paternal line. Bosch et al. (2001), found little genetic distinction between Arabic-speaking and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting with word-borrowing during the 7th century A.D. and through State Arabic Language Officialisation post independence in 1962, as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. According to this study the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (M78, M35, and M81), 13% Neolithic (J1-M267 and J2-M172), 4% historic European gene flow and 8% recent sub-Saharan African. They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier. However this study only analysed a small sample of Moroccan Y lineages.

on voit que 75%"sont des M78 M38 et M81"paleolithiques 13%sont des j1-m267 et des j2-m172"neolithiues et les autres europeens et sub sahariens (sans nous donner les haplogroupes de ces derniers ) alors ma question est qui sont les M78 les M35 les M81 les j1-M267 les j2-M172? et aussi si un male est m78 et sa femme est jem267 alors que seront leurs enfants? aussi comment savoir que les m78 sont paleolithiques et les j sont neolithiques et comment etaienet les haplogroupes de leurs ancetres avant d'entrer dans l ere paleolithique et l ere neolithique? 8aussi on sait que les arabes ont vu le jour en ethiopie (d'apres wikipedia)alors comment savoir si il n y a pas des arabes venus d'afrique? et comment determiner les autres populations venues du moyent orient comme les hebreux les pheniciens les kurdes etc etc? 9autre point disons que le type a un ancetre avec M78 alors si cet ancetre se mariera avec un type M35 ou des J quel haplogroupe dominerait ? 10si le type a des ancetres J et parmi ces ancetres certains se sont croise avec des M alors est ce qu on trouvera toutes ces hybridations de J et de M et de x ou y (s'il y a d'autres melanges autres que ces 2)ou bien quoi? 11dans le meme article de wikipedia sur les amazigh

Archaeology The Neolithic Capsian culture appeared in North Africa around 9,500 BC and lasted until possibly 2700 BC. Linguists and population geneticists alike have identified this culture as a probable period for the spread of an Afro-Asiatic language (ancestral to the modern Berber languages) to the area. The origins of the Capsian culture, however, are archeologically unclear. Some have regarded this culture's population as simply a continuation of the earlier Mesolithic Ibero-Maurusian culture, which appeared around ~22,000 BC, while others argue for a population change; the former view seems to be supported by dental evidence

on dit que la culture neolithique caspienne est apparue a 9,500 jusuq a 2,700 ac et on dit que les chercheurs estiment cette culture comme afro-asiatqiue cad elle peut etre semite amazigh egyptienne beja etc etc ou bien tout simplement proto afro-asiatique or dans l article sur l afro-asiatique on estime que cette famille linguistique a vu le jour soit au yemen soit en ethiopie? 12par les analyses genetiques il s avere que 75%des nord africains ont les fameuses haplogroupes M paleolithique et la on nous dit que la culture amazigh est une culture neolithique qui a vu le jour en periode neolithique alors soit les populations originelles paleolithiques ont ete afro-asiatiquophonise linguistiquement soit cette culture caspienne n'est pas afro-asiatique? 13aussi comment savoir si la culture caspienne est une proto culture amazigh en l absence de vestiges d'ecriture ? 14aussi on nous dit que cette culture est la continuation de la culture mesolithique ibero-maurusienne d'ou quelle est la nature ethnique et linguistique de cette culture? 15dans ce passage du meme article

Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib[10]. Another study on Haplogroup J (Semino et al. 2004) agrees with Nebel et al.'s suggestion that J1-M267 may have spread to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), which they assume to be a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period.[11]. This theory is disputed by Arredi et al. 2004, who argue like Bosch et al. 2001 that the J1-M267 haplogroup (formerly H71) and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

on nous dit que la majorite des tunsiens et algeriens sont issus de differentes migrations d'afro-asiatiques(amazigh puis berberes)venus du moyent orient or en plus haut ils donnent un taux de 75%d'individus de haplotype paleolithiques? 16aussi on voit qu il y a des amazighophones et des arabophones de race negroide ma question est .est ce qu il est question des memes haplogroupes en question independamment de la race cad quoique on soit caucasoide ou negroides il est tjs question du meme haplogroupe? merci pour l'attention —

[edit] A propos du nombre des berberes des photos et de la classification

Hanzukik (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1/la source la plus fiable qui est ethnologue.com nous donne

L'algerie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=DZ Elle donne 4 millions de berberes pour l algerie et ceci pour la moitie des annees 90 alors si on prend en compte les assimilations linguistiques et les migrations on aura un nombre de 2 a 4 millions Je ne sais pas le cas en kabyle mais a setif dans la region chaoui la totalite parle l'arabe dialectale alors que d'apres wikipedia il y a des locuteurs chaoui a setif d'ou on peut conclure que les berberes de setif ont ete assimile linguistiquement a l'arabe dialectale En tout cas c'est tres loin du nombre de 12 millions avances Surtout que seul tizi-ouzou et bejaia sont des villes a majorite berberophone alors qu'aucune autre ville n'a un caractere purement chaouiphone ce qui confirme bien un nombre de 2-3 millions

Le maroc:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=MA Elle donne 7,5 millions en 1998 d'ou on peut prevoir un nombre actuel de 4-8 millions en tenant en compte l'assimilation linguistique ce qui est trop loin du chiffre de 18 millions avance ici Surtout vu la faible densite et la petite superficie des aires berberophones et qu'a part une petite frange autour de la ville rifophone Al hoceima et la dorsale montagneuse(cad faiblement peuplee)juaqu a la ville mixte agadir qui contient une minorite importante de locuteurs en darja et en hassaniya arabe Quand on voit que les seuls casablanca fes marrakech meknes rabat tanger tetouan sale oujda qui sont des villes arabes ont une population de 15 millions sans compter leurs camapagnes et sans compter les arabes dans les aires berberophones on s'apercoit du total manque du serieux dans les chiffres donnes ce qui confirme bien un chiffre de 5-7 millions de berbers en tenant en compte la population des aires berberes

La tunisie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=TN meme chose ethnologue nous donne 26milles chilhi que en prenant en compte les assimiles on peut donner un nombre de 10-15 milles c'est fort probable car il n y a que les villages de matmata el qdima ,douiret,ouirsighen,sedouikech,guellala et tamazra ou il y a des personnes chlehaphones alors qu en ajim,taguermas et cheninni tous les chelhophones ont ete assimiles et il n'existe plus de berberes la bas.

La lybie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=LY on donne un chiggre de 160 milles connaisseurs de dialectes berberes tout dialecte confondue(naffussi ghames et touareg) d'ou on peut avancer un actuel nombre de 100 milles

France Belgique Hollande et autres:

D'abord on sait que la france interdit tout recensement ethnique et considere tous les habitants de la france comme francais ceci apres avoir francilise les provencaus aquitains alsaciens corses occitans catalans etc etc Alors sachant que les berberes et arabes du maghreb et surtout les berberes tendent vite a s'integrer culturellement et linguistiquement tout en oubliant leur langue maternelle(a la differnce des turcs par exemple qui sont tres attaches a leur valeurs nationales) Et sachant que les berberes d'europe et de tout le monde en general sont de culture francaise(ou flamande en hollande)et meme leurs litteraires publient en francais et genralement les familles berberes n'apprennent pas l'arabe ou le berbere ou l'islam a leurs enfants et se diluent tres bien dans la culture religion langue et coutumes de ces pays d'accueil parfois mieux que des purs francais ou purs hollandais Finalement il se peut qu'une personne connait un dialecte berbere mais se considere arabe et le contraire est valable vu que race (qui est la meme pour les arabes et les berberes cad la race mediterraneene sauf les touaregs negroides)identite ethnie langue maternelle et nation sont des concepts differnts Donc il faut faire un census general et questionner "quelle est ton ethnie?" et pas "quelle est ta langue maternelle?" Comment peut on avoir la moindre raison de penser que ces chiffres refletent un epu la realite?

2/Autre point dans cet article a propos des images

comment pouvez vous affirmer que massinissa et augustine hippo sont berberes alors que les berberes au cours de leur histoire etaient soit des bergers soit des agriculteurs et n'ont bati aucune civilisation ou meme une ville ou meme une culture ou meme une langue evoluee ou meme un alphabet(sachant que le tifinagh est une adaptation de l alphabete phenicien et etait utilise que par les touaregs alors que les chleuhs ecrivaient en alphabet arabe et les kabyles n'ecrivaient pas ou ecrivaient tout droit dans la langue de leurs colonisateurs comme le latin le phenicien puis l'arabe et le francais) Ainsi zinnedine zidane est francais Krim belkacem est suppose algerien arabe a moins qu il s'eut meme declare kabyle et meme s il s'est si dit kabyle alors il est considere kabyle et pas berbere Le Hippo est considere latin de nord de l'afrqiue car on ne connait ni son ethnie ni sa langue maternelle Massinisa est un punique numide de langue maternelle punique cad phenicien semite mais pas berbere chamite

3/pour la classification :

sur quel critere vous vous etes bases pour regrouper ensemble kabyles touaregs et chleuhs ensemble sous l'umbrella name berbers vu que les touaregs sont de race negroide les chleuh ressemblent aux mauritaniens et sahraoui et les kabyles ressemblent aux algerois tlemceni costantinois annabi et bizertins (de tunisie) Aussi sachant que les dialectes berberes sont des dialectes minimalistes avec un faible vocabulaire limite et basique et contenant presque 40%de mots arabes et 20%de mots francais vu que les berberes n'ont jamais developpe une litterature ou une culture en berbere et sachant que les dialectes berberes sont tres varies et souvent non intelligibles entre eux et sachant que les dialectes berberes sont dans la meme famille linguistique que la langue arabe est ce qu on peut estimer que les dialectes arabes utilises de nos jours au nord de l'afrqiue peuvent etre assimiles a une forme evoluee des dialectes berberes


uh this is a english version of wiki please make your post in english--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the arabic people not related with berber people

arabic and berber people are classified with chamito semitic people

but Iberians and greeks are classified with indo european http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/AXL/monde/famarabe.htm --Particip (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Table

Source is needed for the data about the numbers of Berber people in Israel. As a citizen of Israel for myself, I don't know about any major concentration of Berber people there (I never met even single one in Israel)-or that one was meaning to the Mizrahi Jews communities whose origins are from north Africa and are consider to be the descendents of many Berber tribes who converted to Judaism (as well as descendents of Jews from Israel)?.--Gilisa (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article?

Can anyone explain to me how this ever got to be a Good Article? I've been watching the population statistics fluctuate wildly over the past few weeks. The only referenced figure is for Niger. Amazingly, this lack of referencing - in defiance of WP:CITE - has always been the case. Back when the page achieved GA status the total (unreferenced) world population of Berbers was c.23 million. It's now an equally unreferenced total of 45 million. A slight variation there. Nice quality control! --Folantin (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Unfortunately this is how GA works (as of right now). YOU (the readers) are the quality control. It is sad that it took over a year for someone to find it. We are currently hoping to revamp the GA system. Please see the WP:GA talk page if you have any further insights as to ways we can improve. will381796 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing article even for a so-called Berber

This article is really confusing because it is mixing a lot of different groups together, and full of historical loopholes. For example, the reason why the genetics is so confusing is because you are classing unrelated groups together, such as the so called Berbers of the Western Sahara and Mauritania with the so called Berbers of the Mediterranean. Remember, North Africa from Morocco to Egypt is approximately as large as the USA. It is also really confusing because a lot of the studies are using non-North African groups, such as the groups that were brought to the region through slavery, in their studies of Berbers. This is similar to studying Indian populations in England in genetics studies of Celts. It makes no sense, which is why I find this article too confusing, and entirely ignorant. The fact is that many of the groups listed as "Berber" are unrelated. This topic is obviously still in its early stages, which might account for all the confusion. I'm not sure that it is such a good idea to list these different groups under the same label, it would be similar to grouping Kurds, Turks, Indians, SOmalians and Nigerians together. LailaKes (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eratosthenes

Yesterday, I added Eratosthenes, Alexandrian mathematician, to the beginning of the list which includes St. Augustine as the most famous person. No doubt, E. is a very famous Berber (Cyrenaican, Libyan). Somebody took him out, I'd like to have an explanation stated here why E. would not qualify. hgwb (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because he was born in Cyrene, a Greek colony, and since we don't know whether he sprang from the loins of 'Berbers' or not, we generally identify him by culture? Of course, the person who removed it could answer your -of tremendous importance- question more properly... 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed it because it was unsourced. 3rdAlcove's comments are also relevant here. Incidentally, the identification of Septimius Severus as a Berber is also disputed. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The total population section is starting to look like propaganda

I think that 47 Million berber people around the world is very much exagerated, according to the 2004 Moroccan census, about 34% people have berber as their mother tongue, that make around 10 Million people. I have added this fact, but someone for some reason has decided to remove it, as it dosen't suit his desire. Morocco is the country with biggest Berber population in the world, with Algeria with a population of nearly 8 Millions, the population in France might be 500 000 if you count Algerian and Moroccan Berbers, and maybe 150 000 to 200 000 if Belgium and Holland nearly all of them Moroccans. The population in other countries is negligeable, so I don't see where 47 Millions comes from. Please people add facts here not pure imagination (or whishes). --Khalid hassani (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The population statistics need to be referenced from a reliable source. As far as I can see, this has never been done. People have simply come along and inserted random guesses, varying from 20 to 47 million. I have decided to replace these guesses with "?" and a request for reliable sources. It's perfectly possible these do not exist, given the politically contentious nature of the issue, but until they are forthcoming I suggest we leave the figure blank. --Folantin (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you for sure that there are 320.000 Moroccans in The Netherlands alone, you can search any Dutch government statistics site for this and you will find it.

Now it's the question how many of those identify as Berber, but in all my time I never really known Moroccans in the Netherlands who see themselves as "Arabs", so you could consider all 320.000 as Berber for demographics sake.

In Belgium there are another about 200.000 Moroccans, they surpassed Italians to become the largest immigrant group some years ago.Ssoass (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about Berber peopleS

The Berbers are a diverse group of ethnic groups, inhabiting a large amount of area, so we would probably refer to them as the "Berber peopleS" if they hadn't become Arabized. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)